Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Researchers propose to redefine life to include the economy

arroba Email

We don’t have a clear definition of life, of course. Is a virus alive? What about an interdependent ecosystem? NASA defines life as an entity capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution. That props up Darwinism but does little to define life. But this new proposed definition is definitely a walk on the wild side:

So biologist Chris Kempes and complex systems researcher David Krakauer from Sante Fe Institute in New Mexico have posed the idea that our focus on evolution as a driving force of life may have “blinded us to additional general principles of life”.

To explore this, the researchers broaden the definition of “life” to the union of two energetic and informatic processes that can encode and pass on adaptive information forward through time.

Using this definition vastly increases what can be seen as life, to include concepts such as culture, forests, and the economy. A more traditional definition might consider these as products of life, rather than life itself.

“Human culture lives on the material of minds, much like multicellular organisms live on the material of single-celled organisms,” Kempes explains.

Based on their new definition, the researchers argue that life has emerged many times on Earth, and that we in fact are co-existing with many forms of current life.

Tessa Koumoundouros, “Scientists Are Proposing a Radical New Framework to Redefine Life on Earth” at ScienceAlert

The paper is open access.

It’s understandable. See, for example: Unclassifiable living structure: Not an animal, plant or fungus — or protist — but still a life form. Fuligo septica is also known by the attractive name of “dog vomit slime mold.” It’s maybe a “protist,” which could be expert-ese for “we don’t know for sure.” It seems that life comes into existence whether it can be classified or not.

On the other hand, when we define “the economy” as “life,” what follows? Dollar bills are cells?

No, they are not cells. They power the economy only through human recognition, not on their own physical contribution of any type.

Nice try, guys, Keep thinking.

as to: "Researchers Propose To Redefine Life To Include The Economy" That reminds me of this quote,
“When a man stops believing in God, he doesn’t believe in nothing, he believes in anything.” G.K. Chesterton https://www.faithandculture.com/home/2019/5/29-believing-in-anything
John 1:4 "In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind."
Well, when it comes to Origin of Life theories, maybe this nonsense is an improvement I mean, when Drs Kempes and Krakauer tell us that the economy is a living thing, isn't that better than what the top Scientists do to prop up Atheism, which is using textbooks to tell lies to a billion people? For 65 years the leading Biology textbooks have said this: "The Miller-Urey experiment made "amino acids, the building blocks of life" That statement is a lie. Here's why: Amino acid molecules are "chiral". That means they're like gloves, both right and left handed. But living things, like their proteins, have only the left handed ones. And Scientists knew this from the get-go. But Miller and Urey made a mixture of both. And a mixture of both won't form a protein, according to statistical thermodynamics. So Miller and Urey didn't make the building blocks of life. Miller and Urey had no idea how even a simple protein could have formed, naturalistically. And today, Scientists still got no idea That's why the Settled Science is still summarized in a Law, first stated by Pasteur, and called the Creationist Law of Biogenesis "Absent Divine Intervention, life comes only from life" Its Settled Science because it is :1) confirmed by a huge body of empirical evidence, 2)is falsifiable in principle and 3) but never falsified in practice. This is one of the reasons why nowadays, Creationism is in the catbird seat. Scientists have been covering-up this Settled Science with lies, for 3 generations. Here's why: When Settled Science says God made the first living thing, that totally kills Atheism. And most Scientists are Atheists, so they would want to hide the truth to keep from looking like goofs. And the other Scientists went along, cause they want to get grants, and look upscale. So they did what they had to do. They taught lies to a billion kids. The lie that Miler and Urey showed you should be able to make life in a lab, when, in truth, they showed you cant. That doesn't mean top Scientists always lie. But they've made a very serious problem for themselves, and for society. When Scientists tell lies to a billion people, how does a sane person believe anything they say? TAMMIE LEE HAYNES

Leave a Reply